As a kid growing up in late 20th century Britain, I'd have settled for the chance of entering a science fair, let alone winning one. Lisa Simpson tried to genetically engineer a tomato in the hope of curing world hunger. Me, I made a booklet about penguins. I read a bit about penguins, wrote a bit about them and sketched a few pictures of them too. That's ok. I like reading, writing and sketching (and penguins). It would have been more exciting to try and build something and experiment with it though. We do have science competitions in the UK, but they are not quite such a big deal and, importantly, they are not so engrained in our culture.

There have been rumours of the death of the science fair in the US recently, with talk of corporate sponsors dropping out, "helicopter parents" micro-managing projects, kids distracted by digital entertainment media.

Enter Google, with a science fair for the 21st century: big and spectacular, souped-up for an online world of interconnected knowledge creation and interconnected knowledge sharing.

(Declaration of interest, not to mention excitement and more than a little showing off: I'm one of the judges)

Google brings a certain geeky glamour to the event, partnering with Cern, Lego, National Geographic and Scientific American, and launching with a Rube Goldberg-inspired YouTube short by the makers of that OK Go video. They also promise to make a huge fuss over the winners at the awards ceremony in June, with a glittering array of prizes (seriously, they are incredible).

If you want some inspiration, try this study of the colour and pattern vision of bees undertaken by a group of 8 to 10-year-olds from Devon which, just before Christmas, was published in a prestigious Royal Society journal. As science teacher Alom Shaha (whose north London school does have a science fair) wrote of this study, secondary school students routinely produce original works of art, music, poems, stories and plays, why not ask them to make some science too?

I think we should be wary of loose comparisons between subjects, but in many respects Shaha is spot on. Not only do we ask children to make art, music and writing, we get them to share such work in concerts and displays. Through this we share an understanding and experience of such culture across generations. We should share, applaud, critique (grumble about ... ) and collaboratively enjoy cultures of science too.

So, for me, the most important part of the Google-ification of the science fair is that you enter by building a website, including a video or slide presentation which not only outlines the project and demonstrates a passion for science, but also puts on a bit of a show.

Science fairs have always been about show. As Principal Skinner tells Lisa Simpson, after her GM tomato loses out to a cute hamster flying a miniature plane: "Every good scientist is half B F Skinner and half P T Barnum".

I'm not sure I'd necessarily go with style over substance, but the need to articulate your project and inspire interest in others is as important in a young scientist as it is for adults.

Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I think the UK is missing something without a culture of science fairs. Science fairs are in many respects, social events. At the local level, friends and families view young people's science work first-hand; as the competitions gradually build to state level, they are covered by the regional press.

The international scope of the Google fair means we can't all pour into one town hall, but I hope that the same technology that allows this event to happen will also encourage people to share its entries as widely as possible: to post links to Facebook, Twitter and by email.